4A
Tuesday, November 5.1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
ENDORSEMENTS
Clinton for president
President Bill Clinton deserves a second term because he best represents the interests of students and the nation. While his presidency has been far from perfect, Clinton has provided a moderating voice as the Republican Congress seeks to shrink the federal government. While Clinton wisely has adopted the Republicans' goal of a smaller government, he also seeks to preserve opportunity for all. Many of Bob Dole's proposals would cut programs while benefiting only a privileged few.
Clinton's education proposals are indicative of his commitment to opportunity. He has proposed making two years of college a right, not just a privilege, for all citizens. The president has proposed a $1,500 annual tax credit for the first two years of college. Clinton also opposes a GOP plan that would eliminate the six-month grace period after graduation for the beginning of repayment of student loans. Dole supports eliminating the grace period, which would create needless problems for graduates rather than cutting down on loan defaults, the plan's ostensible goal.
Clinton's budget management has reduced the deficit by 60 percent. Bob Dole's major economic proposal, a 15 percent tax cut, seems like a risky return to trickle-down economics. One of Clinton's first acts as president, the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, has given families more flexibility in a time when both parents often work.
Clinton achieved a major victory through the passage of the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, both of which Dole actively opposed. Although Clinton has supported expanding the death penalty, he knows that compassion and prevention have a place in stopping crime as much as building more prisons and establishing harsher sentences.
While some of Clinton's policies have been influenced by the Republican Congress, the president's vision will help keep the nation headed in the right direction. Dole's proposals would keep the country mired in the failed policies of the past.
Docking for U.S. Senate
Democrat Jill Docking of Wichita should serve as U.S. senator. Docking's views come closer to matching students' beliefs and concerns than those of her conservative opponent, Sam Brownback. Her opinions on education, health care and the economy are informed by her status as a mother and a stockbroker.
Docking chooses the middle of the road on most issues, including health-care reform and education. She believes the Kassebaum-Kennedy bill was a good first step toward heath care reform, but she would give more control of reimbursements to care providers. Unlike her opponent, Docking has definitively stated that she does not support the dissolution of the Department of Education or a Constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools.
Docking believes governmental spending must be kept under control and should not outpace the growth of the economy. Docking's moderate stance on the economy is typical of her approach to many issues, a trait that she shares with many students and Kansans. As a U.S. Senator, Jill Docking would be a tremendous asset to Kansas.
Thompson for U.S. Senate
Sally Thompson is the best choice for the U.S. Senate in the race to fill the seat of retiring Sen. Nancy Kassebaum. As State Treasurer since 1990, Thompson has earned more than $700 million for taxpayers through wise investments.
Thompson will easily adapt her pragmatic style of leadership to the Senate, working hard to protect the interest of all Kansans. Thompson supports maintaining the current level of student loan financing. She also supports increasing student financial aid by offering tuition reimbursement tax credits, which would be financed by cuts in corporate welfare.
Thompson advocates a health-care system that protects the patient against insurance companies that change rates and regulations at will. She supports reforming the current system instead of dismantling it. Thompson would like to see more anti-crime measures passed in Congress. She supports the Safe and Drug Free Schools Act to decrease drug use among youth. She supports the death penalty and the ban on assault weapons but does not think that all gun ownership rights be taken away.
Thompson will represent Kansan well with thoughtful, articulate, educated solutions to the nation's problems.
Hancock for U.S. House
Judy Hancock, a moderate Democrat, would best represent constituents in the 3rd District, which includes most of Lawrence. Not only is she widely supported by Democrats in the area, but also by 24 percent of Republicans polled by The Kansas City Star.
Hancock opposed a Republican plan that would have dramatically reduced financing for student loans. We disagree with Snowbarger's plans to eliminate the Department of Education. Shifting too much control to the state, we believe, may create disparities between the quality of education children in different states receive.
On crime, Hancock supports the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban. A five-day waiting period does not interfere with a citizen's right to bear arms, and most law-abiding citizens have no need for assault weapons.
Both Hancock and Snowbarger favor health-care reform. But Hancock endorses plans that would allow working individuals to retain health-care coverage if they switch jobs. This plan would benefit young people, who may switch jobs as they work to establish their careers.
KANSAN STAFF
AMANDA TRAUGHBER
Editor
CRAIG LANG
Managing editor
MATT HOOD
Associate managing editor for design
KIMBERLY CRABTREE
CHARITY JEFFRIES
News editors
DARCI L. McLAIN
SARA ROSE
Public relations directors
AMANDA TRAUGHBER
Editors
ARREN GERSCH
Business manager
HEALY SMART
Retail sales manager
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Campus ... Sueanna Lóëf
... Jason Strait
... Amy McVey
Editorial ... John Collar
Features ... Nicole Kennedy
Sports ... Adam Ward
Associate sports ... Bill Petulla
Online editor ... David L. Teeka
Photo ... Rich Devinki
Graphics ... Noah Mueller
Artwork ... Andy Rohlbeck
Special sections ... Amy McVey
Wire ... Debbie Staine
Business Staff
Campus mgr .. Mark Ozikem
Regional mgr .. Dennis Haupt
Aaslauter Retail mgr .. Dena Centeno
National mgr .. Heather Valier
Individual mgr .. Heather Valier
Production mgr .. Dan Kopec
.. Lisa Quebbsoman
Marketing director .. Erie Johnson
Creative director .. Desmond Crawford
Shelly Wachter
Mass Impact mgr .. Dena Plascotte
Internet mgr .. Steve Sanger
Jeff Victor/ KANSAN
Wishy-washy candidates encourage voter apathy
You can't blame the University of Kansas for choosing to rename Hoch Auditorium after former chancellor Gene Budig. After all, given the invasion of red bulls' eyes throughout Homecoming and Parents Weekend, that was probably the only way they could avoid naming the building "SuperTarget Hall."
Still, there's no getting around the fact that most of America has a bone to pick with Budig. People call him a "wimp," a "wishy-washy" or "spineless." But they choose to ignore the fact that the flaws they accuse Budig of are reflected throughout society — especially in politics.
In this week's Newsweek, a story called "Hand to Hand Combat" focused on four Senate races around the country. One of those races was for Bob Dole's old seat right here in Kansas. Democrat Jill Docking and Republican Sam Brownback are neck-and-neck in the race, with Brownback holding a marginal lead.
The article concluded with these chilling, but at the same time accurate, remarks: "Kansans don't want their senators to be too idealized."
Essentially, American politics in the 1990s comes down to this: if you stand for something, you're a fool. If
I had to ask myself: How can a society that rails against indecision and malleability in baseball so eagerly accept it in politics? It is as if we reward the wishy-washy on the ballot, but crucify them on the sports page. That's a double standard.
STAFF COLUMNIST
you have a world view and set of values before you run for office, you're an extremist. And if you believe there is a right and wrong in life, you're a radical.
Seeing the reality of politics incites three possible reactions. Many Americans say there's no problem. There's
nothing wrong with compromise. In today's society, cooperation is more important than personal convictions. A person has to be willing to set his or her beliefs aside to foster community spirit and friendship.
Others become angry. But they aren't mad because the lack of principles exists. They're angry because the sleazy-smiling, used-car-salesman politicians they see are exact reflections of themselves.
to do whatever makes them popular. A society in which values such as courage, honor and honesty are made worthless.
Finally, some Americans, like me, are concerned. They see a government of people who have no core beliefs, blown to and fro by every wind of special interest money. A nation in which children are taught
The truth is, as Abe Lincoln said, "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." That means in a vacuum of high principles, we get government of the wafflers, by the wafflers, and for the wafflers.
Whenever someone claims that candidates for public office should not have a set of values, one question always comes to mind: What, then, are we to base our decision on when we get into the voting booth?
Politics used to be about ideas. It used to be a choice between different visions of America. Now ideas are threats. Ideology is a disease. A world view is a cancer.
But politics should be a contest of ideologies. If politicians are allowed — even expected — to bend or reverse their stand on the issues under pressure, what purpose can be served by voting?
It seems that it doesn't matter what you believe. And if anybody can govern, I'd like to have that job. The money's not bad, and it's a great way to avoid prosecution.
When we vote for a candidate who repeatedly shows that he or she has no stand, no world view, we're just choosing who will get the hundred-thousand-dollar salary to sit in a leather chair and cast votes based on not principles but on popularity.
Maybe Kansans are tired of ideology. Maybe Americans are sick of principles. But if that's the case, why can't the Senate be filled with randomly selected citizens?
Andy Rohrback is an Andover sophomore in Journalism.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Student newspaper is merely an exercise
In an Oct. 28 story, the Kansan bravely faced some of its criticisms. It explains a lot to realize that the paper's leadership changes each semester and that it must print many of its articles not because the editors want to publish them, but mainly as part of class exercises.
Now, I think I understand why the Kansan wins awards, while so many readers find it lacking; different criteria. The judges must see the Kansan's success as an exercise in helping students
Instead of its tag, "The student newspaper of the University of Kansas," the Kansan should call itself, "A student newspaper exercise under the auspices of the William Allen White School of Journalism." The distinction is important for several reasons. First of all, very few people inside or outside of the University realize the Kansan is primarily an exercise. Though the Kansan reflects well on KU as a semester-based, daily exercise in journalism, on the other hand, as
learn to produce what counts for journalism, while many local readers tend to see the Kansan's frequent failure to provide quality reportage.
"the student newspaper," the Kansan makes the student body look journalistically challenged, especially while each semester's editors learn on the job. Moreover, the Kansan should stop calling itself "The student newspaper," so that perhaps the student body will realize that the role of a student newspaper is potentially much too important to remain a mere exercise. If students more fully controlled a student newspaper — who runs it, what it says — the campus climate here could improve dramatically.
Evan Heimlich Mariboro, N.J., graduate student
Evan Heimlich
History class serves up fun with material
Careful readers of this column must realize by now that we aren't assigned our subjects. Most columnists have a specific area of interest, but if one of us wants to write about Bob Dole one week and, say, our cat the next, who's to stop us?
And it is with this Bill Clinton's enquiry authority that I would like to make a plug for a class as we all ponder next semester's enrollment. HIST/COMS 603 should be a requirement for graduation.
STAFF COLUMNIST
Picture this: It is the first day of the spring semester, and students have been filling anxiously into the room for 20 minutes. Two professors enter the room together and face the class. They stare at the students, glance at their watches and then look at each other.
"Well," the other explains, "one of us has to say something."
"What are we supposed to do?" asks one professor.
The two instructors are Wil Linkugel, professor of communications, and Lloyd Sponholtz, associate professor of history. Together, they team-teach Franklin D. Roosevelt: Personality, Presidential Problems and Public Rhetoric.
Their course began in 1976, after Linkugel — who had been at the University for 20 years — received for review a series of audio tapes containing the speeches of Franklin Roosevelt. He felt the tapes could serve as a nucleus for a course.
At that time, Linkugel and Sponholtz had known of each other for about six years, through church and a tabletop baseball league. They discussed teaching such a course, drafted a description and opened for business, so to speak. (It was, as Sponholtz pointed out, a lot different back then to get a course off the ground.)
Aside from the detailed study of a skilled politician, wartime leader and genius at rhetoric and public speaking, class members are most often intrigued by the way the two professors interact. They engage in light-hearted jibes at one another, poke fun (often at the expense of their subject), and laugh it all off. The classroom environment is relaxed and laughter is commonplace. Learning from these two is nearly effortless, their hundred-title reading list and writing assignments notwithstanding.
"I think what makes this course work is that neither one of us has a particularly jealous ego," Spontholt said. "We can engage in repartee."
Linkugel agreed.
"This has worked exceptionally well," he said. "We both participate each class hour, and there's no effort to upstage the other."
"If he gets a zinger in on me, I'll just bide my time," Sponholtz said. "I think there is a degree of comfort between us. I think learning goes better if you can establish a relaxed atmosphere — and laugh."
So as you wait in line at Strong Hall to enroll, happy for the new semester in light of the midterms that you just failed, go ahead and pencil in the line number for the course. Do it in the spirit of broadening your horizons, learning something new or having some fun. You will work, don't be mistaken, but you will learn — and you will laugh.
As one student said, they're like Matthau and Lemmon, only they hold doctorates.
HUBIE
Andy Observermert in a Liberal, Kan., junior
in Journalism.
By Greg Hardin